You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Metaverse Territorial Scale: A New Paradigm for Spatial Analysis: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Perry Fu and Version 1 by Giovana Goretti Feijó Almeida.

The Metaverse Territorial Scale is a novel category of spatial analysis, extending beyond conventional physical scales. It conceptualizes the metaverse as a distinct territory, shaped not only by geographical contiguity but also by power relations that emerge through digital interactions, code infrastructures, and platform-based governance in an immersive space undergoing continuous co-production. This concept is rooted in the theory of territory, which defines it as a space produced by the action of social actors. However, the theory is expanded to a domain where territorialization transcends physical materiality and generates new forms of territorialities. Consequently, the scale proposed is considered a valuable addition to the existing array of scales, including traditional categories such as local, regional, national, and global scales. This phenomenon differs fundamentally from geographical scales due to the absence of physical barriers, which endows it with unparalleled adaptability and scalability. This allows the overlapping of multiple spatial logics within the same virtual environment, characterized by a high degree of immersion. The “Metaverse Territorial Scale” is therefore a conceptualization of a virtual-immersive spatial dimension that is not static; it is continuously shaped and redefined by user interactions and underlying technological innovations. Consequently, analysis from the perspective of this scale is essential for understanding the spatial and power dynamics that manifest themselves in cyberspace.

  • metaverse territorial scale
  • territory
  • cultural studies
The metaverse is conceptualized as a network of three-dimensional, immersive virtual universes accessible via the internet, where users interact with each other and with the digital environment [1,2,3,4][1][2][3][4]. Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition, the term has gained significant traction, particularly in the context of urban and societal advancement towards “smart” models. These models have given rise to novel management and economic propositions, such as the MetaEconomics and MetaManagement models in MetaCities [5]. In this rapidly evolving scenario, there is a need for analytical models capable of interpreting new spatial configurations. In this context, the concept of the Metaverse Territorial Scale [6,7][6][7] emerges.
In order to comprehend this novel concept, it is imperative to undertake, as a preliminary measure, a thorough examination of the function of conventional territorial scales. In geographical and social analysis, scales (local, regional, national, international) are fundamental tools for studying accessibility, equity, socioeconomic interactions, and resource governance in various sectors, such as transportation, tourism, and agriculture [8,9,10,11][8][9][10][11]. However, these conventional metrics, inherently associated with physical geography, prove inadequate in capturing the distinctive dynamics of virtual spaces, which exceed the limitations of traditional boundaries.
The Metaverse Territorial Scale, proposed by Almeida [6], addresses precisely this gap. Contrary to conventional geographical divisions, territory in the metaverse is conceptualized as a singular scale, emerging concurrently at multiple levels through the interactions among its users (social actors). This environment, despite its use of spatial and landscape metaphors, is a mediated, monitored, and monetized space [1], constituting a field of disputes and power relations, and therefore a territory. Consequently, Raffestin’s [12] theory of territory, which conceptualizes territory as a space produced by power relations, provides a robust theoretical framework for analysis.
The articulation between Raffestin’s theory [12] and the concept of Metaverse Territorial Scale [6] thus provides a model for understanding the new forms of territoriality that emerge from immersive environments. The application of this model to practical cases, such as the metaverse cities of Seoul and Dubai [6[6][7],7], illustrates its potential for analyzing how spatial dynamics are transformed in cyberspace, offering interdisciplinary perspectives for the study of social interactions in multiple dimensions.
The present essay aims to discuss and theoretically validate the concept of Metaverse Territorial Scale [6] by addressing the inadequacy of traditional geographical scales for analyzing cyberspace. To this end, it proposes a connection with Raffestin’s theory of territory [12] in order to demonstrate how this new analytical model enables the interpretation of territorialities and power relations emerging in the metaverse.

References

  1. Schell, J. The Metaverse: What’s Now, What’s Next. In Gaming the Metaverse; Beil, B., Freyermuth, G.S., Hamm, I., Ossa, V., Eds.; Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld, Germany, 2025; pp. 201–220.
  2. Cheng, S. Metaverse. In Metaverse: Concept, Content and Context; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 1–23.
  3. Phakamach, P.; Senarith, P.; Wachirawongpaisarn, S. The metaverse in education: The future of immersive teaching & learning. RICE J. Creat. Entrep. Manag. 2022, 3, 75–88.
  4. López-Belmonte, J.; Pozo-Sánchez, S.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Lampropoulos, G. Metaverse in Education: A systematic review. Rev. De Educ. A Distancia (RED) 2023, 23.
  5. Qin, R.; Li, J.; Wang, F.Y. Metaeconomics and metamanagement for metacities and metasocieties in metaverse. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2024, 54, 6849–6858.
  6. Almeida, G.G.F. Cities and Territorial Brand in the Metaverse: The Metaverse SEOUL Case. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10116.
  7. Almeida, G.G.F. Metaverse(s) and Regional Development: Exploring Immersive Territories; Publishing The Help: Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil, 2023; Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Metaverse-Regional-Development-Exploring-territories-ebook/dp/B0CP16D9MB (accessed on 3 August 2025).
  8. Campos Mira, M.R.; Mónico, L.S.M.; Breda, Z.M.J. Territorial dimension in the internationalization of tourism destinations: Structuring factors in the post-COVID19. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2021, 17, 33–44.
  9. Cavallaro, F.; Bruzzone, F.; Nocera, S. Effects of high-speed rail on regional accessibility. Transportation 2023, 50, 1685–1721.
  10. Simona, Z. Territorial scaling of agroecology: At the intersection of agri-food Sustainability transitions and Rural revitalization. J. Rural. Probl. 2022, 58, 36–43.
  11. Wang, Y.; Li, X. Developing and validating a scale of host territoriality in peer-to-peer accommodation. Tour. Manag. 2022, 88, 104425.
  12. Raffestin, C. Por Uma Geografia do Poder; Ática: São Paulo, Brazil, 1993.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback